Socialism VS Capitalism
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
I will not give my opponent anything to attack as yet since they have done the same to me.
I am entitled to bring new points in Round 2 as there's a Round for Proposition (Prop) to reply to me.
I, as Opp support Capitalism over Socialism for this debate.
an economic, political, and social system in which property, business, and industry are privately owned, directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people
Socialism (has two elements or variants)
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Your definition of Socialism is wrong. Socialism is when the community owns the means of production rather than private owners or the state. The state version of socialism came after the original idea of socialism. Originally Socialism was a series of steps which gave the public more and more control over the means of production and diminished the private sector and the state, which would eventually lead to communism. Essentially, a society where the state owns the means of production is even less socialist than capitalism.
Socialism can be a tricky thing to define because not only is there an erroneous and bastardized state version of socialism which is not truly socialist but socialism is also both a system in and of itself and an umbrella term for multiple far left systems. Social democracy, democratic socialism, socialism and communism are all types of socialism. The type of socialism I advocate is a hybrid form of socialism which is essentially Marxism and technocracy combined with an added bit of systems theory methodology. My Opponent calls me an Anarcho-Communist which is approximately 50% accurate.
Prop = Proposition = Type 1 = Socialism's Advocate
Con = Contender = RationalMadman = Capitalism's Advocate
S&G: I use British English outside of quotes.
Your definition of Socialism is wrong.
- Pro R2
This is a lie. My definition was taken from an official dictionary online. I said it's potentially either A or B. The definition 'a' did not require a State Government to be there so we are actually in agreement.
When Pro says:
Socialism is when the community owns the means of production rather than private owners or the state. The state version of socialism came after the original idea of socialism.
It directly coincides with the definition A from my Round 1:
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
What is curious is that in the case made for Socialism, Pro concedes the following things:
The state version of socialism came after the original idea of socialism.
Which concedes that all examples of Socialism even remotely being functional (which always involved an official State with a Government) is rendered as non-Socialism meaning that the track record of Socialism is totally and utter failure to even function without altering what it is into something more feasible.
Originally Socialism was a series of steps which gave the public more and more control over the means of production and diminished the private sector and the state.
This is ironic because by taking away private property from the people who own it, you are telling them they have no right to own it. Then by it not being the State who takes it away it ends up theoretically owned by no one except that then it ends up owned by everyone meaning that in true Socialism the State is there, it's just that absolutely everyone has become a member of the governing body. The alternative would be that in Socialism no one owns anything but if no one owns anything then no one can share it with others which defeats Socialist ethos and the concept of what people are doing in it. Even then, it means that no matter which way around things are, Socialism in its true form defeats itself by making it evil for taking all property of people away from them and then giving it to everyone else which means it has done what it stands against no matter which way around the 'right' and 'wrong' are.
Essentially, a society where the state owns the means of production is even less socialist than capitalism.
I am confused how this can be true but this is also totally irrelevant to the debate if it is true so I will ignore it. It can be closer or further and still this leaves Socialism not in any way superior to Capitalism.
Socialism can be a tricky thing to define because not only is there an erroneous and bastardised state version of socialism which is not truly socialist but socialism is also both a system in and of itself and an umbrella term for multiple far left systems.
If you cannot define it, you cannot defend it in a formal debate like this making you automatically lose. It would mean you're defending what is arguably nothing at all since to be something you need to be defined as what you are.
Social democracy, democratic socialism, socialism and communism are all types of socialism.
This is a lie. Social Democracy is tamed capitalism and I know this in detail because it's the system I advocate is the best one. Hillary Clinton is a Social Democrat as is almost every single leading politician (on both sides) in highly developed nations around the whole world except in the US where there's candidates who genuinely learn right-wing as leading politicians and politicians in China who are beyond social Democrat and are properly Socialist (Dem-Soc variety).
A decade ago, most people interested in politics associated the words social democracy with business-friendly governments, lower taxes, economic growth, high wages and low unemployment. Social democracy seemed to be the guardian of a new Gilded Age. It meant good times, a positive Third Way between capitalism and socialism. It represented a progressive vision of market reforms, new public management and rising consumption, a shift from savings capitalism to a capitalism of easy lending, the triumph of a new era of ‘privatised Keynesianism’ led by the governments of David Lange, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder.
Social Democracy is an ideology that seeks to promote egalitarianism within a capitalist system.
As for Democratic Socialism, Pro has already conceded that when Socialism is state-run it never is democratic and defeats itself so I needn't supply evidence regarding this.
Socialism and Communism are the same thing. Communism is a more official term for the movement is all. If you analyse the words it becomes even more obvious:
Socialism is what happens with a society under the ideals of public ownership of all goods and services, communism is what happens with a community of the same thing. Communism is actually the one that seeks to destroy the state that's why it is a community and not a society. Really it's just semantics and both are completely corrupt when put into action and impossible to put into action if you want the pure form of it without the corruption.
Pro is advocating for Technocratic Socialism and I do not understand why they felt the need to specify that. This is not a debate about the ideal society but which out of Socialism and Capitalism is superior even if one has a hybrid of either as their ideal one (Social Democracy is a hybrid of Capitalism and Democracy for instance).
Notice that in Pro's entire Round 2 they offer zero arguments that justify why Socialism is correct or better when Capitalism. That's correct, they spend the entire Round discussing what Socialism is and then do not at all say why Socialism is better than Capitalism meaning that so far they have 0 points in their favour in this debate.
Let's go into why Capitalism is superior to Socialism.
I have already pointed out how Pro concedes that Socialism in its proper form cannot, has not and will not work. The only way to have Socialism is to defy the core value of everyone being equal by having a government run the pseudo-Socialist state and even then it's unbelievably corrupt and disgusting (which Pro will agree to so I won't bother proving it).
What I will now go ahead and prove is that Capitalism is functional and that it will inevitably be what humans opt for over Socialism:
The basis of capitalism is individualism. The economic system stems from humanistic ideals of the 18th century European Enlightenment -- beliefs that each human being is individually unique and valuable. This mode of thinking was a turning point. Before the Enlightenment, governments didn't talk about human rights. But in this vision of humanity, a society made up of unique individuals who pursue their individual interests is healthy -- it's characterized by progress, spiritual and worldly wealth, and liberty. Individuals are not just free to pursue self-interested goals; they should pursue self-interested goals.It's easy to see how this shift in social consciousness became the basis of capitalism. If self-interest is a good thing, and personal wealth is a self-interested goal, then widespread personal wealth is a good thing. And if individual welfare leads to overall social welfare, than individual wealth leads to overall social wealth.The added philosophical view that turns the social concept of individualism into the economic concept of capitalism came from Adam Smith in the late 1700s. His book, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," had a profound effect on economic principles. Before Smith, the economic self-interest of the individual was seen as counterproductive -- or at least non-contributory -- to the economic welfare of society as a whole. Smith disagreed with this belief. He suggested two concepts that ultimately became the basis of capitalism:Because self-interest guides producers to create exactly what people want, the pursuit of personal gain eventually benefits society.An economy has a natural design. Left to its own devices -- and removed from politics, religion and all other pursuits -- it will regulate itself. As long as no one throws a spoke in the wheel, the economy will work the way it's supposed to, and everyone will benefit.Smith's overall view is that an "invisible hand" guides the economy through the combination of self-interest, private ownership and competition. The end of this natural economic balance is general social wealth. In other words, everybody benefits.Real Capitalism: The PracticeIn Smith's model, there is a natural economic order that produces the greatest good. Government interference interrupts this natural order. His theory of capitalism plays out like this:
- There is an owner class: The means of production (capital) are owned only by the few people (capitalists) who can pay for them. Modern means of production are things like machines, factories and land.
- There is a working class: The people (laborers) who use capital to produce goods and have no ownership of that capital. Capitalists pay the laborers with wages (money), not with the products the laborers produce. The laborers use that money to purchase the goods they want. In this way, no one who purchases goods (the consumer) has any real connection to those goods.
- Rational calculation for profit guides production: The capitalists try to judge the market and adjust production accordingly in order to realize the greatest possible profit.
- Society is made up of consumers: Because people are disconnected from the goods they produce, the process of buying things, not of creating things, becomes the primary way in which people define themselves.
- The more profit the capitalists bring in, the more goods they produce. The more goods the capitalists produce, the lower the price of those goods. The lower the price of goods, the more people can afford to buy, and the higher the standard of living throughout society.
- The government's only real role in capitalism is to maintain peace and order so the economy can work without interruption. This laissez-faire (anti-interference) system of economics relies on interconnected, self-regulating networks of producers, consumers and markets that operate on the principles of supply and demand.Essentially, when more people want something, supply goes down and price goes up. When fewer people want something, supply goes up and price goes down. In the end, it's all about finding a way to turn a profit. Profit results from obtaining or producing goods for less than you sell them for. This core value of capitalism dates back thousands of years to a practice known as mercantilism. On the next page, we'll look at how capitalism may owe its very existence to the spread of Islam from the Middle East to Europe.CAPITALISM TERMINOLOGYFinance Capitalism: An economic system in which the product is money instead of goods. Profits are obtained through the buying and selling of foreign currencies and financial products like stocks and bonds.Marxist Economics (or Planned Economy): In the late 19th century, Karl Marx proposed an anti-capitalist economic system. Instead of private ownership for personal gain, Marx promoted public ownership for collective gain -- goods distributed throughout society based on need. Marxism is the basis of the communist economic systems of the former USSR and, until recently, China.Mixed Economy: A system that incorporates components of pure capitalism and components of a planned economy.Monopoly Capitalism: A system in which the means of production are all privately owned by huge corporate conglomerates that bring in exorbitant profits by eliminating the competition component of the free market.Pure Capitalism (also Laissez-Faire Economics, Market Economy or Free Market): A system in which the government doesn't interfere. The system works on the principle of a Free Market, in which all financial dealings are controlled by private producers and consumers. Through private ownership, competition and self-interest, the economy achieves a natural balance and maintains the overall economic good.State Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, but the state controls the market to various degrees.
- Julia Layton [B.A. in English literature from Duke University and a M.F.A. in creative writing from the University of Miami]
Victory is mine.
I am just going to cut to the chase. Con offers a line-by-line refutation of literally every single part of Pro’s arguments with some faults and seemingly non-topical arguments.
For example, Con never really explains why the people taking the means of production equates to having no more private property. Moreover, he never really offers a case to prove why socialism is better.
However, Pro never responds so I am forced to buy that all of Con’s arguments are true. Ergo, Con wins purely by mitigation and refutation.
Conduct is also awarded to Con for the forfeiture of rounds.
Ignore the fact that the criticism is not underlines. I copied and pasted my rfd from Google Docs because apparently people could edit it.
Hello! If there is any question, feel free to PM me. I can’t promise to get to you immediately, but I will be as quick as possible if my rfd needs to be explained. Underlined text will be general comments, recommendations for debaters etc.
Pro forfeits round 1, failing to create a constructive case.
Con then uses this opportunity to define integral terms in the resolution.
Pro immediately contests the definition and attempts to clarify his stance.
I have 2 problems with this:
A. This should have been clarified in the 1st round. Imagine someone trying to change their advocacy in the middle of the debate. This is abusive as you could fend off any offense by simply “fixing” your original plan.
B. The fact that you have yet to offer any constructive arguments is problematic. Tell me why I should value your economic system over the capitalist system or I can’t vote for you.
Con then posts his case
He first focuses on the definition of socialism which pro contests by claiming that Pro’s definition actually does coincide with Con’s definition because there were technically 2 he used:
“a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state”
Part a, Con explains, coincides with pro’s definition of socialism.
You don’t really explain how the definition that Pro champions directly relates to your “part a” definition. I can infer what you mean, but try to draw a clearer link. Considering the lack of response from Pro, I am forced to buy this definition.
Con continues with his analysis, stating that if we were to exclude all examples of socialism involving a state government, we would have no successful cases of socialism.
You could have worded this a bit better, it took me a second to understand what you were saying.
Shame about the forfeit.
Okay I'll shoot you a message, let's figure something out with our schedules.
Yes, I'm 100% Socialist. Ultimately the closest description of my ideal society would be the Resource Based Economy, which is essentially "Technocratic Socialism".
Awesome! Also just confirming that you're for 100% socialist, correct? Not just universal health care and education but a capitalist job market?
Excellent. I am looking forward to the debate.
If nobody has taken up by Monday I probably could. Got a busy weekend ahead of me, but I'd love to debate this.
Yes, I am pro/socialism. Would you like to take on this debate?
Hey I'm new to this site and have no idea who pro/con is... I'm going to assume that because you're on the left and socialism is on the left, you're arguing in favour of socialism?